search for: 96k

Hello rsync users, I'm trying to copy every file which belongs to my Ubuntu 23.04 installation (stored on an ext4 fs to a ZFS storage disk. The command that I've used is : # rsync -avxHAX * /mnt/zroot2/zroot2/OS/Linux/EVO sending incremental file list rsync: [generator] set_acl: sys_acl_set_file(dev/kvm, ACL_TYPE_ACCESS): Operation not supported (95) rsync: [generator] set_acl:

Hi, I am attempting to use flac to encode 96k/24-bit broadcast wav (BWF) files. BWFs are wav files with some extra meta-data chunks, and is the favoured archival format for many institutions around the world. These files are encoded successfully by flac, however the resulting flac file is not playable on all flac players - it plays successful...

...r config. Thats work better for go to play the last fallback-mount file (i test this). See here our part of the config: <mount> <mount-name>/aac</mount-name> <password>xxxxxxx</password> <public>1</public> <hidden>0</hidden> <limit-rate>96k</limit-rate> <fallback-mount>/fk-aac</fallback-mount> <fallback-override>1</fallback-override> <max-listeners>1500</max-listeners> </mount> <mount> <mount-name>/fk-aac</mount-name> <password>xxxxxxx</password> <public...

...ist recently where the WAV file was incorrectly formatted, and the same warning appeared. If that is the case, using software which correctly implements the WAV format will give better results. Brian W. On May 6, 2007, at 17:37, Justin Waddell wrote: I am attempting to use flac to encode 96k/24-bit broadcast wav (BWF) files. BWFs are wav files with some extra meta-data chunks, and is the favoured archival format for many institutions around the world. These files are encoded successfully by flac, however the resulting flac file is not playable on all flac players - it plays successful...

OK. So I am running a 1.5 Ghz P4 with 256mb runing redhat 7.3 using Liveice, Lame and Icecast. Liveice and lame on the source box and icecast on the streamer box. 96k and 56k streams sound wonderful. But the 24k stream sounds like gerbils talking to each other. Any ideas of what would be causing this? Thank You, Mike <p> -- ///////////////////////////////////////// - Mike Lyon - - Studio Engineer - -...

> www.shoutcast.com). And - at least with MP3 - there is a *big* > difference in sound quality between 96k & 128k. You might want to compare different encoders. From what I have read, lame and its derivatives are great for 128 and higher, and the fraunhofer is good for sub-128, and Xing is always the worst. YMMV of course. Mark --- >8 ---- List archives: http://www.xiph.org/archives/ icecast...

Hi: The reason 24kbps sounds bad is in part due to the fact that LAME has annoying defaults for that rate. Using mono, it defaults to 16khz. Stereo it defaults to 8khz. It can cope with 22.05khz and 11.025 khz respectively just fine at those rates. I've not used liveice, but if it's possible to specify the --resample command line option with either 22050 or 11025 as its argument

I have tried changing the sampling rates. I have tried the two you mentioned below. Still no luck. Plus, if I disable one of the streams (either the 56 or the 96) the 24k stream works fine. Is LAME having issues doing 3 streams? Thank You, Mike <p><p><p><p>On Fri, 14 Jun 2002, Geoff Shang wrote: > Hi: > > The reason 24kbps sounds bad is in part due to the fact

...of 48k, and frequencies above 20k are effectively not encoded. I've been trying to get up to speed on the specification, and studying its operation, but as far as I can infer, there is a fixed set of 21 bands distributed logarithmically to encode DC to 20k. If I were inclined to encode at say, 96k, and pass ultrasonics up to 40k, I suppose I could in theory lie to the encoder about its input rate so it thinks it's 48k, and I could restore its 96k rate after decoding, but obviously this would result in doubling the necessary bit rate. Is there a more efficient way to encode information ov...

Hi, We use Icecast version 2.4.4 and use mountpoint /main and include use fallback-mount. When the /main is offline 92% of the listeners go to fallback-mount and 8% disconnect. The format is 96k AAC and we have 8 mountpoint and 8 fallback-mount points include extra fallback files AAC. Are there any players who cannot handle switching to a fallback mount point? Best regards, Michel -- -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: <http://lists.xiph.o...

On Sun, 23 May 2004, Conrad Parker wrote: > On Sun, May 23, 2004 at 07:04:28AM +1000, Kenji Chan wrote: > > Is that ok for vorbis to encode 24bits/96KHz audio? > yes, oggenc should be able to handle it. Not only does it handle it fine: but most players will downsample the 96k audio for playback on non 96k able hardware. (24bittage isn't an issue as Vorbis is 24bit internally, thus all players will produce good output from 24 bit input)....

Greeting all -- I'm having some problems setting up multiple streams with iceS, for example, a hi-bandwidth and lo-bandwidth stream of the same audio. Could someone post a config that works in this case? thanks .oOo.oOo.o..o.oOo.oOo. Ben Wilson admin -- thelocust.org ben@thelocust.org 'OoO'OoO'O''O'OoO'OoO' --- >8 ---- List archives:

...setting up multiple streams with iceS, for > example, a hi-bandwidth and lo-bandwidth stream of the same audio. Could > someone post a config that works in this case? Here's what I've been using: The encoder is a PII 233 with 64MB ram running Redhat Linux 7.1. The source MP3s are 96k/bs with a sampling rate of 44.1kHz. I send the 96k stream directly with no reencoding. I reencode the 24k stream using LAME support compiled into IceS. Heres the ices.conf: (I changed the hostname and password to protect the guilty, by the way...) <?xml version="1.0"?> <ices...

...someone would like to check: > http://dir.xiph.org/index.php?sgenre=&stype=&search=aporee > (don't care about the content ;) > thx, u. You seem to be streaming at all sorts of different bitrates... I'm guessing WMP is expecting content at 128k, but recieving only 64k or 96k, hence the rebuffering. I have no idea why the server is reporting 128k though... :( Leo

...the last fallback-mount file (i test this). > > See here our part of the config: > > <mount> > <mount-name>/aac</mount-name> > <password>xxxxxxx</password> > <public>1</public> > <hidden>0</hidden> > <limit-rate>96k</limit-rate> > <fallback-mount>/fk-aac</fallback-mount> > <fallback-override>1</fallback-override> > <max-listeners>1500</max-listeners> > </mount> Hi, Icecast has no `limit-rate` option, only the kh fork has. In general this list is abou...

...he last fallback-mount file (i test this). > > See here our part of the config: > > <mount> > <mount-name>/aac</mount-name> > <password>xxxxxxx</password> > <public>1</public> > <hidden>0</hidden> > <limit-rate>96k</limit-rate> > <fallback-mount>/fk-aac</fallback-mount> > <fallback-override>1</fallback-override> > <max-listeners>1500</max-listeners> > </mount> > > <mount> > <mount-name>/fk-aac</mount-name> > <passwor...

I'm trying to send out multiple streams. My encoder is a PII 233, so I have to conserve CPU cycles. I encoded my mp3s as 96kb/s with a 44.1 sampling rate. I send my 96k stream without reencoding and it sounds great. I also sned a 24k stream that is being reencoded from the 96k mp3s. It works pretty good, the load on my linux box is about 0.5 on average. However, the sampling rate is 8k. I'd rather bump that up to...

I would like to ask them Why do they always say that OPUS is a leader in 64k and 96k, but that it is not 128k or 192k? Does OPUS not achieve transparency in 128k and at 160k is it like a 320k MP3 file? Thanks for reading my question, this is referred to the new version of OPUS 1.2. Since I want to know your recommendation for a transparent file at a lower bitrate. --------------...

So, I've googled around, and can't seem to find anything regarding usage of limit-rate inside of the mount tags. So... <mount> blah... mount settings here <limit-rate>(How to set the number here?</limit-rate> </mount> Any help would be appreciated. Nicholas -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL:

...s 100K February 28, 2012 protocolo.pdf --- 1 root users -rwxrwx 21K June 27, 2013 proyecto.doc --- 1 root users -rwxrwx 21K June 21, 2013 Project 3?.doc drwxrwxr-x 2 3000085 4.0K users Mar 17 12:59 PROYECTO.txt -rwxrwxr-- 1 3000085 28K users Mar 12 12:11 segundo.doc Project --- 1 root users -rwxrwx 96K July 22, 2013 recomendaciones.cls If I run the "gentent" command only shows me posix users. Example: daemon: x: 1: 1: daemon: / usr / sbin: / bin / sh bin: x: 2: 2: bin: / bin: / bin / sh sys: x: 3: 3: sys: / dev: / bin / sh sync: x: 4: 65534: sync: / bin: / bin / sync ... But if I do...